AI is making a tangible impact on the way people approach hiring. Everyone understands that AI could potentially do a variety of tasks that people are currently employed for. But how are company leaders viewing the replacement of employees with AI?
Instead of relying on our own experience, we sought a more comprehensive understanding of the job market.
We recently ran a survey of 3,005 managers to reveal who’s most likely to swap staff for AI, the decisions behind making that call, what roles they consider fair game, and how much cost savings it would take to push them over the line.
Full AI Conversion Results
Here are the complete rankings of our survey.
Key Findings
Idaho stays human – for now.
With just 8% of managers open to replacing people with AI, Idaho ranked as the most resistant state.
That resistance lines up with a broader trend: managers who are cautious about AI often say they would only consider it with steep cost savings. Half of the national respondents said that they would only pull the trigger if savings hit 50%.
This suggests that the perceived cost of disrupting teams and the resulting loss of positive company culture are equally high.
Maine is the anomaly.
At 67%, Maine’s managers are the most enthusiastic about automation, above California’s 53%.
Yet, even in AI-friendly states, most say they would struggle more to justify replacing staff with AI (57%) than with cheaper overseas workers (43%). So, while many companies like the idea of replacing staff with AI for various reasons, there are potential ethical considerations that hinder practical applications.
The boardroom matters more than the balance sheet.
Across the survey, 36% of managers pointed to pressure from upper management or shareholders as the main reason they would switch to AI.
Productivity gains (31%) and cost savings (27%) trailed behind. That suggests the cultural tone of leadership may be just as decisive as the raw economics.
Not all jobs are equal.
Certain roles are perceived to be more secure than others. Technical roles like coding and design were seen as most replaceable (33%), while sales (11%) and creative work (15%) were seen as least ethical to automate.
This continues to ring true, as states like California and Colorado, which are both hubs for tech and design, were among the most willing to push humans aside.
Transparency is rare
Only 46% of managers said they would tell their staff if an AI replacement was on the horizon. The majority (54%) admitted they would keep it quiet until necessary.
That secrecy, combined with high willingness in states like Hawaii (43%) and Maryland (38%), suggests workers there may be among the least likely to see a job loss as a result of AI coming their way.
This intentional lack of communication can likely be attributed to the misalignment between the desire of managers to replace humans with AI and the decisions made at an executive level. Even those who are eager to replace people may try to minimize the negative impact of this decision on company culture.
Final Thoughts
The survey shows just how complicated the AI conversation really is.
Some managers are driven by cost, others by executive pressure, and some by a sense of what’s “ethical.”
What stands out most is the divide between states like Idaho and Maine, as well as the industry divide. These factors collectively suggest that geography, leadership style, and company culture also play a significant role.
For employees, that means your fate in the age of AI may depend not just on your role or performance, but on where your manager sits, and who they’re trying to impress.
Methodology
This study is based on an online panel survey of 3,005 managers, conducted to find out if they have reservations about replacing human workers with AI. Participants were selected to reflect a balanced mix across age, gender, and geography. To ensure statistical reliability, internal data sources were used to establish population benchmarks, and a two-step process was applied: stratified sampling followed by post-stratification weighting. This ensured the survey results accurately aligned with the broader U.S. population. The survey was carried out in September 2025.
